Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 06, 2016, 11:09:11 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 683
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Poll for Republicans: Should Republicans be gloating? on: December 01, 2016, 09:18:43 pm
They should gloat a little bit.

I'll gloat just to the point of reminding how smug so many of the red avatars were.  How some of them were personally nasty and tried to run me off, along with some other folks.  How they didn't think about the fact that there's a reason folks go out and "play the game", whether it be football or elections.

I'm happy that some folks here were gravely disappointed.  Some were snotty and nasty on a personal level.  And the folks that called me racist, sexist, etc., well, I'll gloat over the fact that you folks are gravely disappointed.  Such behavior was, and is, uncalled for, and while many of the folks who have called me (and others who supported Trump on this forum) racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. simply because of our Presidential choice lack the humility to examine themselves and apologize for that, the simple fact that their angst will rise every time they hear "President Trump" on TV or radio will be a source of satisfaction for me.  "The Lord delights in just verdicts."  Perhaps their angst is my just verdict in the face of unwarranted personal attacks.  (I'll still think this even if Trump goes South and I end up disapproving of him.)

But, no, I won't rub folks' face in it.  Hillary won the popular vote, and there is something to be said for that.  Trump lost the popular vote because he took "Being Trump" to the extreme, but he might not have won the electoral vote if he hadn't.  The GOP took both Houses of Congress, but they lost seats in each, and they lost the Nevada Legislature (both houses), so the election had something for everyone.  

As time goes by, I think that Trump, and only Trump, could have beaten Hillary Clinton.  I believe that had one of the Plaid Brothers (Kasich, Rubio, even Cruz) had run, they well may have won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral Vote.  They would have run up margins in Republican states, but they wouldn't have expanded the map as Trump did.  Trump "traded" extra voters in GA, TX, and AZ for voters in MI, WI, and PA.  His allocation of support was far more efficient than Clinton's, and I attribute this to far shrewder campaign strategy and political insight.

Trump winning doesn't change the fact that you are a repugnant individual who had no problem voting for a literal sexual predator.

Come on. Donald friggin' Trump is the president of the United States of America, and we're still here? With the deplorables? What will it take?

People vote based on a combination of different factors. There is no single one factor that suddenly blacks out the sun of every other consideration. For example, we would all vote for a racist, sexual predator if it was 99% certain that the other candidate was going to start a nuclear war, wouldn't we?  Better distaste than slaughter. That wasn't the choice here, but it shows that there's no one disqualifying factor that is absolutely invincible.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Place for Trump voters to repent on: December 01, 2016, 08:17:12 pm
The "respect" question from Pew always bothered me. If you say you "have no trouble respecting" people of a certain opinion, it sounds sort of like a compliment. But on the other hand if you say you "have a hard time" respecting them, it sounds like an insult. There's no neutral option. My view of Trump supporters as such is neither respect nor disrespect.
28  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Shouting match at Harvard between Trump/Clinton top campaign managers on: December 01, 2016, 08:11:57 pm
Proud of Palmieri and Benenson.

Personally, my view is that polarizing the electorate on race, which is what talking about race in the context of campaigns does, is not a good electoral strategy for anti-racist campaigns. There's such a thing of being so convinced in one's own righteousness it makes one stupid.

Which is not to say I don't admire it.
29  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of The 1975 (British pop band) on: November 26, 2016, 01:18:49 am
Freedom band.
30  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / My final thoughts about the state of American politics this year. on: November 26, 2016, 01:18:28 am
When all is said and done, for some reason I come back to this scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsae1i9vEwQ
31  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Question for Trump supporters - when did America stop being 'great'? on: November 24, 2016, 12:25:25 pm
You're attempting reduction to the absurd.  I appreciate the effort, but it misses the point.  I am not advocating a "zero-sum game."  As I stated in my original post, our aggregate GDP has increased.  It's just that those of developing nation have increased faster.  Capitalism is very fashionable now, even in Communist China.  It's a positive-sum game, to be sure, so long as it sustains itself.

Of course not. But the frame of reference that America was greater when we had 50% of world GDP because large parts of the rest of the world were reduced to rubble, assumes zero-sum game.
32  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Question for Trump supporters - when did America stop being 'great'? on: November 24, 2016, 12:00:13 pm

Greatness should be measured in absolute terms, not relative.


That's just silly.  I'm no trump supporter, but you cannot honestly believe that.  Is five a great number?  Well, in a vacuum we can't say.   Compared to two it's great, but compared to nine is is not.

Is 1000 great?  Well, if it is the number of dollars I receive each day as renumeration for my labors then yes, it is indeed great.  If, on the other hand, it is the number of dollars I receive each month, then no it is not great.

A year ago we could say "No woman has ever been nominated by the Democrats or Republicans for president."  Today we can say, "the only woman ever nominated by a major party was so narcissistic and so untrustworthy that even a greedy, unethical businessman accused of sexual harassment, bigotry, and fraud defeated her, winning several states that Democrats have not lost in a generation."  This is not a bigger situation, and it is not a better situation.

Your argument has so many holes in it you should market it as a sieve.


Would America be a greater country if we destroyed the rest of the world? We would have 100% of the world's GDP. We would also be the country that killed 7 billion people, and soon sink into economic and environmental catastrophe.

If my arguments has the holes of a sieve, your argument does not even have the thread to hold together as a single piece. And your kind of zero sum thinking is dangerous!

Even if Hillary had lost in a 60-40 landslide, her being in the running would have still represented progress, compared to no woman ever having seriously run. It says a woman is worthy of being considered. This has never been said before by our country, never seriously. Prior to this year, the sum total of all the women ever to run for president in 240 years received about 2.5 million votes. After this year it will be over 67 million votes. A quantum leap in our people's concrete willingness (which had only been theoretical before) to demonstrate support for female leadership.
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CAIR exit poll: Trump got 13% of Muslim vote, doubling Romney on: November 23, 2016, 11:25:28 pm
Nothing you're saying is wrong, and I agree that the margin of error is high enough that saying it "doubled" is a bit misleading -- because there's a good chunk of probability that the difference less than doubled (although also a good chunk that it more than doubled).  But this is no more "spin" than saying someone "narrowly leads" in a survey is, which we do all the time when it's within MoE.  This is pretty standard language when it comes to presenting surveys.  I agree we should change the language we use to discuss surveys be more numerate, but the title isn't really irresponsible or misleading.

Your rephrase of my point doesn't really capture the full import. Going from say 20% to 40% with a MOE of 2% could also be 22% to 38% -- less than doubled. Yet this "less than doubled" would still be a gargantuan jump, and 'doubled' would be accurate. At the other extreme, going from 1% to 2% with a MOE of 2% could be 1% to 1%... far from doubled. Or the real number could be 1% to 4%-- quadrupled! Yet this quadrupling would represent only a shift of 3% of the population... quantitatively miniscule. In other words, as the absolute number reaches extreme limits, geometric expressions become both less accurate and less meaningful. In this case, even a doubling represents a shift of 6 in every 100 voters... In absolute terms quite small.

As far as whether it is misleading or spin, how are we to gauge this objectively? Put it in the context it's presented and look at its functional use. Before I posted, the conversation was dominated by this small minority of Muslims. Arguably they were being given outsized importance. I say this as someone who actually spoke to a Trump supporting Muslim in real life. His reason for supporting Trump? He said Clinton lied about her emails. And he thought a woman's menstrual cycle would make them too emotional. What'd days know-- Muslims are people with the ability to think in more than one dimension! Who would da thought? What's more remarkable is that 74% of this supposed sharia loving fifth column voted for a pro abortion rights woman to be CIC.
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The irony of Democrats and the electoral college on: November 23, 2016, 09:56:48 pm
Non-citizens are not going to go along with voter fraud easily because they know it is a crime, and most of them are economically vulnerable, afraid of the authorities, and deadly terrified of being arrested and thrown into jail. This would mean loss of jobs, being thrown out of homes, etc. No, these people are not going to take that risk to commit voter fraud.
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bill de Blasio 2020? on: November 23, 2016, 09:08:36 pm
Unless gets more than a 47% approval rating in NYC (still possible), it's not likely. It's hard to see a liberal NYC mayor being elected nationally. TBH, I was afraid he would primary Hillary in 2015. If not for Sanders, he could have filled that progressive void and been formidable. Unlike Sanders, he knew how to win minority votes. But he passed up his chance.
36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be the best Democrat for each of these voting blocs? on: November 23, 2016, 08:26:38 pm
1. Elizabeth Warren
2. Cory Booker
3. Tim Kaine
4. Bernie Sanders
37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The irony of Democrats and the electoral college on: November 23, 2016, 08:14:21 pm
As for myself, 18 months ago, when the Electoral College favored my party:
In the last two elections, an Electoral College bias in favor of the democratic candidate has developed. In 2008 Obama beat McCain by 7.26%, but it would have taken 9.5% shift nationwide towards McCain for the Republican to have won a majority of the Electoral Votes.  In 2012, Obama beat Romney by 3.86%, but it would have taken a 5.37% shift towards Romney for the Republican to win a majority of the Electoral Votes.  Thus, in the last two elections there has been about a 2% bias in the Electoral College, such that had either election been close, Obama could have won in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by up to 2%.

The only way to eliminate a bias in the Electoral College using the popular vote as the metric of guidance would be to determine the election result by the popular vote. Hence, if Obama beats McCain by 7.26%, then it would take a 7.26% shift nationwide towards McCain for the Republican to win the election. If Obama beat Romney by 3.86%, then it would take a 3.86% shift towards Romney for the Republican to win the election.

See how simple that is? This is what Democrats have been proposing all along.

The Democrats have always supported the NPV, as evidenced by the fact that we have passed the NPVC in the states we control. We have been consistent. The president-elect has, to his credit, also been consistent in he has said both before and after the election, that he would prefer the popular vote. A rare agreement between Democrats and Trump! Bipartisanship in an age of division. The only question is, why do forum Republicans reject their president-elect's common sense?
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Donald Trump (R) vs Hillary Clinton (D) vs Michael Moore (G)? on: November 23, 2016, 07:31:58 pm
In 2015, Michael Moore announces he is running for the nomination of the Green Party and seizes control of the party from Jill Stein. Nina Turner of Ohio agrees to join his ticket.

Arguing that both candidates are phonies who "don't care about you," he spends all his time in the Midwest slamming bad trade deals and the political establishment that has forgotten the white working class. When Moore starts to rise in the polls, Democrats are apocalyptic, claiming he will spoil the election, just like Ralph Nader did. The Clinton camp pours money into MI and WI and adjusts its message to be more populist to squeeze Moore. The shaming of Moore becomes so intense he stops criticizing Clinton and turns his guns on Donald Trump, claiming the latter is a phony. Trump responds to the bait and spends the final week of the campaign trading insults with Moore.

The final result:



Clinton/Kaine - 278 (47.4%)
Trump /Pence- 260 (45.4%)
Johnson/Weld - 0 (3.3%)
Moore/Turner - 0 (2.5%)

Is this a plausible scenario?
39  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Question for Trump supporters - when did America stop being 'great'? on: November 23, 2016, 07:12:57 pm
Serious question - when do you think, to within five years - this happened and why?

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'll take a shot.  When I was born, the US represent fifty percent of the world's aggregate GDP.  Today it represents about twenty percent.  50 is greater than 20. 

It's not that we have diminished, rather other societies have prospered, largely as a result of importing the American ideal. 

Greatness should be measured in absolute terms, not relative.

By this standard we are getting greater as a nation all the time, despite the tragedy of Donald Trump's election. "We are getting greater all the time" is not an exciting storyline. It does not promote stories of nostalgia and glory times yonder when we were young. But it is true.

Think
-- Would you really want to live in a country that had never nominated a woman as a major party nominee, ever?
-- Would you really want to live in a country that never completed a successful landing of a first stage rocket, and all space rockets could only be used once?
-- Would you really want to live in a country that never once produced a person who could jump 25,000 feet from an airplane and still survive?
-- Would you really want to live in a country with a lower median income, a lower stock market, a higher poverty rate, a less valuable currency, and a lower GDP?

Hopefully not. All those describe this country a year ago.
40  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump pressed Argentina's president about stalled building project on: November 23, 2016, 06:38:00 pm
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/307345-report-trump-building-project-makes-headway-after-call-with-argentinian

Quote
According to Quartz, three days after Trump spoke with President Mauricio Macri, one of his real estate projects in Buenos Aires made headway after years of delays. That report was based on a story out of the Argentina-based La Nacion.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Trump could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college vote on: November 23, 2016, 06:15:48 pm
Wow, this thread was very prescient.
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could this happen? on: November 23, 2016, 06:07:16 pm
The problem with party switches is that they more often than not look opportunistic, and a switch like this one would, because it would make more sense from a political standpoint, than as a reaction to any external event or sea change in the parties significant enough for someone with Kasich's economic views to flip.
43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CAIR exit poll: Trump got 13% of Muslim vote, doubling Romney on: November 23, 2016, 05:44:49 pm
But most people are reacting to the doubling part, not the 13%. What's the sampling error on a survey like this, anyway? A 6-7% shift is barely outside of noise. If you had asked me before seeing this study, I would have said probably 20%.

Assuming it's a random, representative sample, a n=2000 survey has a margin of error of +/-2.2%, so that's well beyond the margin of error.  I have a low opinion of exit polls when it comes to the "random, representative" part, although this appears to be a phone survey so I'd have to know the methodology better to comment.

That means if they measured 6.5% support in 2012 with the same sample size, it could be anywhere from 4.3% to 8.7% support.

And 13% support in 2016 could be anywhere from 10.8% to 15.2% support.

In other words, it could be a shift from 8.7% to 10.8% support and be within the margin of error in both surveys. With larger numbers, a "doubling" of support would mean a lot more -- say, going from 20% to 40% would mean 1 in 5 votes flipped. With very small numbers, "doubling" means a lot less. At the extreme, going from 1% to 2% support is "doubling". 13% is a very small number, so it means less than the phrase "doubling" normally means.

I don't want to harp on it too much because now it looks like I'm getting defensive, but the above is part of why it seems like spin, also.


I mostly agree, but two things.

1. The assumption that groups like blacks, Muslims, and especially Hispanics are homogeneous cuts across all political spectra.  How many white liberals would be totally shocked to learn that Trump received a big chunk of the Hispanic vote, and seems to have lost them by less than Romney?  A lot, I'd wager.

Sure, but they're the same white liberals who can't imagine how Trump won white women. The social liberal assumption that people MUST vote their identity is absurd. It's the entire worldview that's the problem.

Quote
2. There are a lot of groups that contributed to Clinton's loss in a mathematical sense.  Non-college educated whites are a big chunk of it, but going from 98% to 90% among blacks, plus a lower black turnout, definitely didn't help Clinton, and quite probably lost her Michigan.  That's not nothing.

Of course, when you lose by that little any factor probably cost her Michigan. But that doesn't excuse the absurd implication in these analyses that (a) it's these groups' fault for not supporting hard enough, or that (b) repeatedly getting 95% of the black vote with high turnout is a normal situation that should be expected, especially when the first black president is not on the ballot. ( Also considering the fact that Detroit and Flint are hardly thriving cities that have done wonderfully under the status quo Clinton was partially running on, but that's another story )
44  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CAIR exit poll: Trump got 13% of Muslim vote, doubling Romney on: November 23, 2016, 05:21:55 pm
Nice spin on getting 13% of the vote.

I don't think it's exactly insignificant that he doubled Romney's percentage showing.  It would be spin if he'd only listed "doubling Romney" in the thread title, but he indicated 13% too, so I don't see the problem.

But most people are reacting to the doubling part, not the 13%. What's the sampling error on a survey like this, anyway? A 6-7% shift is barely outside of noise. If you had asked me before seeing this study, I would have said probably 20%.

I just think it's bizarre how people expect any group to be so monolithic. Like we had complaints after the election that Hillary only got 90% of the black vote instead of 96% or something like that. Then suggesting that blacks cost Hillary the election. To me it's bizarre. People are human beings and when you have two individuals running in a competitive election, they will break different ways. To treat people as nothing more than their religion or skin color and expect them to be 95% in the tank for one candidate strikes me as strange. But other people seem to accept it.
45  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Do you support the TPP? on: November 23, 2016, 04:06:18 pm
On the merits I don't know. But the only purpose of the TPP has been to act as a whipping boy for everything Americans hate, so... no? I don't support bad politics.
46  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who would you vote for in this hypothetical election: on: November 23, 2016, 04:00:40 pm
Option 2. Aside from a singular one-time mistake, Bush's foreign policy was acceptable. His second term foreign policy was fine.

Aside from an agreement with Iran whose success is far from assured, Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster. His Russia "reset"? The TPP? Hard to imagine more clear backfires. Russia, China, and North Korea are more aggressive than ever. The Middle East is in shambles. Syria has been a spectacular humanitarian failure. Authoritarianism is on the march all over the world. Our intelligence agencies seem to be suffering from major morale problems. The international order is collapsing. ISIS is in 32 countries, etc. Trump and Pence both effectively savaged the "Obama-Clinton" foreign policy, and with good reason. Why anyone could vote Obama here is strange.
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CAIR exit poll: Trump got 13% of Muslim vote, doubling Romney on: November 23, 2016, 03:54:14 pm
Nice spin on getting 13% of the vote.
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Almost impossible to knock off a first term incumbent on: November 23, 2016, 03:52:02 pm
When was the last time the pv loser got this low of a share of the vote and still won?

No PV loser/EV winner has ever gotten this low share of the vote.
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why do Atlas Dems keep talking about Kamala Harris as a potential candidate? on: November 23, 2016, 03:47:32 pm
Trump did not win because he was a white male. What struck me throughout the campaign was that nothing was handed to him. No one handed him his poll lead in July 2015. No one handed him support from the party. No one handed him enthusiastic endorsements from his vanquished primary opponents. No one handed him celebrity or newspaper endorsements. He was almost alone the whole time. What he got, he took himself. Trump won because he identified a cleavage that the major parties weren't meeting and exploited it. The Obama coalition is no guarantee of success because it has only been validated in world where Democrats were running up against plutocratic R candidates like McCain and Romney. That world is gone.
50  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results on: November 23, 2016, 03:22:56 pm
On social media, claims that Trump's margin dropped 1,500 after Outagamie county recanvass. Is this happening in all the counties in WI, or are the procedures different for each county?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 683


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines